Here is George with fellow Bond Timothy Dalton, who both attended the launch of the Seventh Annual BritWeek Festival in Los Angeles.
And somewhere in the world four other guys are wryly thinking: "For all the cash, and all the fame, and all the fawning, I was never James Bond in the way they were."
Here is George with fellow Bond Timothy Dalton, who both attended the launch of the Seventh Annual BritWeek Festival in Los Angeles.
And somewhere in the world four other guys are wryly thinking: "For all the cash, and all the fame, and all the fawning, I was never James Bond in the way they were."
-{
I'll bet Connery isn't thinking that! (Nor should he!)
Here is George with fellow Bond Timothy Dalton, who both attended the launch of the Seventh Annual BritWeek Festival in Los Angeles.
And somewhere in the world four other guys are wryly thinking: "For all the cash, and all the fame, and all the fawning, I was never James Bond in the way they were."
-{
I'll bet Connery isn't thinking that! (Nor should he!)
Well, I suspect SC would certainly be more bothered about the "cash", than anything else.
But I'll leave the reading of the rest to others. -{
And somewhere in the world four other guys are wryly thinking: "For all the cash, and all the fame, and all the fawning, I was never James Bond in the way they were."
-{
I'll bet Connery isn't thinking that! (Nor should he!)
Well, I suspect SC would certainly be more bothered about the "cash", than anything else.
But I'll leave the reading of the rest to others. -{
Guys, nobody heard anything about GL's autobiography-Amazon UK has the release date being the 23rd of this month, but seems strange nothing much has been heard about it with it being so close to the release?
Are you sure? Anything I've read suggests the figure was a lot lower than that .....
"How much, or little, Connery was paid for Dr. No is in some dispute. Connery told Playboy magazine in a 1965 interview, he only received 6,000 British pounds, or $16,800. U.K film historian Adrian Turner, in his 1998 book on Goldfinger puts the figure at $40,000, in line with director Terence Young’s paycheck."
What is a "money fiend" exactly? Someone who feels he wasn't paid what he's worth?
A Money Fiend is someone who craves being Rich.
Well in that case Connery isn't very different from most people. I am willing to bet that there are very few individuals who, if offered the opportunity to be rich and it doesn't involve anything illegal, would turn it down. So we're all pretty much "money fiends".
To a degree I agree with that statement. However, I think that holding a grudge for so long when you have made a sh*tload of money afterwards (and of course during his run as Bond) is a bit petty.
U.K film historian Adrian Turner, in his 1998 book on Goldfinger puts the figure at $40,000
Although Turner's book has some interesting points, especially on the way the screenplay evolved, he's often shaky on facts* so I'd not rely on this quote.
* For example, the TV version of CR which starred Barry Nelson was not called "Too Hot To Handle"; this was used for a US paperback edition.
Tom Mankiewicz didn't write the screenplay for DN (he'd have been about 19 at the time; Mr Turner seems to have confused him with Wolf Mankowitz).
etc etc
U.K film historian Adrian Turner, in his 1998 book on Goldfinger puts the figure at $40,000
Although Turner's book has some interesting points, especially on the way the screenplay evolved, he's often shaky on facts* so I'd not rely on this quote.
* For example, the TV version of CR which starred Barry Nelson was not called "Too Hot To Handle"; this was used for a US paperback edition.
Tom Mankiewicz didn't write the screenplay for DN (he'd have been about 19 at the time; Mr Turner seems to have confused him with Wolf Mankowitz).
etc etc
Fair point - though Connery himself actually says he received only £6000 for Dr. No in the Playboy interview. Here's the link - it's a great interview.
Even ay £6000 that was good money for 1962, for an unknown actor in a film
which could fail big time. In 1962 the average YEARLY wage was ......... £799.
So at £6000, IMHO he wasn't short changed. Although I sure he doesn't feel
that way.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Connery was so pissed off at Cubby and Harry earning a sh!t load more than he was, he was blinded to the fact that he - SC - was paid a **** load more than the average joe in '62.
And, of course, poncing around playing dress-up isn't as hard as MOST jobs that were being done for far, far less. Still isn't.
Although "Playing dress up " can be dangerous, Apparently
11 people die each year putting on their trousers.
( The stats don't say whether they were being put on
in another married womans house, at the time ) )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Even ay £6000 that was good money for 1962, for an unknown actor in a film
which could fail big time. In 1962 the average YEARLY wage was ......... £799.
So at £6000, IMHO he wasn't short changed. Although I sure he doesn't feel
that way.
I don't think the comparison is really valid, to be honest; no one would seriously deny movie stars are paid way too much, but look at it like this ...
Assuming the figures are correct, Connery was paid less than 8 times the annual average wage in Britain at the time, for the film.
Most actors these days (and I imagine back then too) would earn a significantly higher multiple for starring in the lead role of a major Hollywood movie.
Also, as a percentage of the film's overall budget - over $1 million, as far as I know - it's a minuscule amount for the main star to be paid.
And that's before even considering the actual profits the film delivered ...... {:)
Even ay £6000 that was good money for 1962, for an unknown actor in a film
which could fail big time. In 1962 the average YEARLY wage was ......... £799.
So at £6000, IMHO he wasn't short changed. Although I sure he doesn't feel
that way.
I don't think the comparison is really valid, to be honest; no one would seriously deny movie stars are paid way too much, but look at it like this ...
Assuming the figures are correct, Connery was paid less than 8 times the annual average wage in Britain at the time, for the film.
Most actors these days (and I imagine back then too) would earn a significantly higher multiple for starring in the lead role of a major Hollywood movie.
Also, as a percentage of the film's overall budget - over $1 million, as far as I know - it's a minuscule amount for the main star to be paid.
And that's before even considering the actual profits the film delivered ...... {:)
Of course, Mr Connery didn't have to sign the contract that was presented to him, with the financial numbers on it.
That made him far better off than the average bear.
Still, some people are never satisfied, obviously.
I also think that the huge wages for Movie stars is a fairly new thing.
In older movie days Stars were well paid but not to the extent that
todays stars are. To become a really wealthy star you'd have to have
a long list of movies behind you, Hence why the likes of William Holden and
Cary Grant made their money through Businnes and Share Deals.
Human nature being what it is If you feel you've been shafted by someone
you'll take that to the grave.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Connery was paid over $1 million (a HUGE sum at the time) to come back to do DAF. If all he ever cared about was money, why did he donate most, if not all of what he was paid? None of us really know the entire story of what on between Connery and the Bond film producers, and the constant refrain from some that he is just a money-grubbing bastard is tiresome.
I personally don't regard Connery as an over- greedy person.
What really makes me sorry for the man is, that he apparently is not able to cherish and enjoy his success. Like others said, he was an underpaid and hard- working man and suddenly made a worldwide carreer with one particular job.
He earned good cash and I am sure that he had not to worry about about money since then - so why not just sit back and enjoy?
Roger Bond certainly did and he seems to be the much happier person that way -{
*Additionally he seems to be unable to laugh about himself - just like ol' Roger can.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Nobody could forsee the success of the movie and the franchise back then. It was a risky endeavour and the main actor has been paid with a 8-10 fold annual average salary for a work that lasted for some weeks.
He was an unknown actor back then other projects flopped which had to do with 007 previously so it was a big gamble back then for the producers.
They made a hit and the financial success was reflected in all following roles and jobs for Connery from then on. I don't think that he has reason to complain as he had nothing to do with the potential losses that the Dr No project could have made.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I did some quick reading and found out ( If True) that Lazenby
was offered $1 million to return for DAF, and got $400,000 for
OHMSS. (Average yearly wage £1,608) so he did very well. )
Once again if true Both Connery and Moore got a small percentage
of the Movie profits, But I was wondering if anyone knew if this was
only for the Profits from the cinema release or if it carried on to cover
future TV sales, dvd, blu-ray ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I personally don't regard Connery as an over- greedy person.
What really makes me sorry for the man is, that he apparently is not able to cherish and enjoy his success. Like others said, he was an underpaid and hard- working man and suddenly made a worldwide carreer with one particular job.
He earned good cash and I am sure that he had not to worry about about money since then - so why not just sit back and enjoy?
Roger Bond certainly did and he seems to be the much happier person that way -{
*Additionally he seems to be unable to laugh about himself - just like ol' Roger can.
I agree - it's a shame Connery couldn't lighten up and enjoy the success of his tenure as Bond the way Moore does. I'm sure that has to with a lot more than just money.
Well bear in mind there could be some personal animosity anyway between him and the producers, plus his typecasting took him away from other roles in his prime, plus the sheer time taken up with the role too. A bloke in his early 30s has a particular attitude to seeing his life slip away on nonsense while seeing others rake in squillions on the back of his efforts.
Edit: Typically, a Lazenby thread soon turns in to a Connery-orientated thread! )
Comments
I'm first in line for that!
Caption of the Year? Well said.
Well, I suspect SC would certainly be more bothered about the "cash", than anything else.
But I'll leave the reading of the rest to others. -{
Yes, Connery is/was a money fiend.
What is a "money fiend" exactly? Someone who feels he wasn't paid what he's worth?
A Money Fiend is someone who craves being Rich.
He certainly was paid peanuts in the beginning, relatively speaking. Didn't he only get something like 16,000 US dollars for Dr. No?
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
Are you sure? Anything I've read suggests the figure was a lot lower than that .....
"How much, or little, Connery was paid for Dr. No is in some dispute. Connery told Playboy magazine in a 1965 interview, he only received 6,000 British pounds, or $16,800. U.K film historian Adrian Turner, in his 1998 book on Goldfinger puts the figure at $40,000, in line with director Terence Young’s paycheck."
Well in that case Connery isn't very different from most people. I am willing to bet that there are very few individuals who, if offered the opportunity to be rich and it doesn't involve anything illegal, would turn it down. So we're all pretty much "money fiends".
Although Turner's book has some interesting points, especially on the way the screenplay evolved, he's often shaky on facts* so I'd not rely on this quote.
* For example, the TV version of CR which starred Barry Nelson was not called "Too Hot To Handle"; this was used for a US paperback edition.
Tom Mankiewicz didn't write the screenplay for DN (he'd have been about 19 at the time; Mr Turner seems to have confused him with Wolf Mankowitz).
etc etc
Fair point - though Connery himself actually says he received only £6000 for Dr. No in the Playboy interview. Here's the link - it's a great interview.
http://seanconneryonline.com/art_playboy1165.htm
which could fail big time. In 1962 the average YEARLY wage was ......... £799.
So at £6000, IMHO he wasn't short changed. Although I sure he doesn't feel
that way.
Connery was so pissed off at Cubby and Harry earning a sh!t load more than he was, he was blinded to the fact that he - SC - was paid a **** load more than the average joe in '62.
And, of course, poncing around playing dress-up isn't as hard as MOST jobs that were being done for far, far less. Still isn't.
11 people die each year putting on their trousers.
( The stats don't say whether they were being put on
in another married womans house, at the time )
I don't think the comparison is really valid, to be honest; no one would seriously deny movie stars are paid way too much, but look at it like this ...
Assuming the figures are correct, Connery was paid less than 8 times the annual average wage in Britain at the time, for the film.
Most actors these days (and I imagine back then too) would earn a significantly higher multiple for starring in the lead role of a major Hollywood movie.
Also, as a percentage of the film's overall budget - over $1 million, as far as I know - it's a minuscule amount for the main star to be paid.
And that's before even considering the actual profits the film delivered ...... {:)
Of course, Mr Connery didn't have to sign the contract that was presented to him, with the financial numbers on it.
That made him far better off than the average bear.
Still, some people are never satisfied, obviously.
In older movie days Stars were well paid but not to the extent that
todays stars are. To become a really wealthy star you'd have to have
a long list of movies behind you, Hence why the likes of William Holden and
Cary Grant made their money through Businnes and Share Deals.
Human nature being what it is If you feel you've been shafted by someone
you'll take that to the grave.
Further, I understand Connery had two titles in mind for his still un-published autobiography.
The first: "IT WAS THE DIRECTOR'S FAULT THE FILM WAS GARBAGE"
and the second, of course: "THE MONEY WAS NEVER ENOUGH"
What really makes me sorry for the man is, that he apparently is not able to cherish and enjoy his success. Like others said, he was an underpaid and hard- working man and suddenly made a worldwide carreer with one particular job.
He earned good cash and I am sure that he had not to worry about about money since then - so why not just sit back and enjoy?
Roger Bond certainly did and he seems to be the much happier person that way -{
*Additionally he seems to be unable to laugh about himself - just like ol' Roger can.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Nobody could forsee the success of the movie and the franchise back then. It was a risky endeavour and the main actor has been paid with a 8-10 fold annual average salary for a work that lasted for some weeks.
He was an unknown actor back then other projects flopped which had to do with 007 previously so it was a big gamble back then for the producers.
They made a hit and the financial success was reflected in all following roles and jobs for Connery from then on. I don't think that he has reason to complain as he had nothing to do with the potential losses that the Dr No project could have made.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
was offered $1 million to return for DAF, and got $400,000 for
OHMSS. (Average yearly wage £1,608) so he did very well.
Once again if true Both Connery and Moore got a small percentage
of the Movie profits, But I was wondering if anyone knew if this was
only for the Profits from the cinema release or if it carried on to cover
future TV sales, dvd, blu-ray ?
I agree - it's a shame Connery couldn't lighten up and enjoy the success of his tenure as Bond the way Moore does. I'm sure that has to with a lot more than just money.
Edit: Typically, a Lazenby thread soon turns in to a Connery-orientated thread!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Here's the young man himself selling citroen Cars.
http://youtu.be/eaW9eArDPYc